Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 23rd, 2015, 06:29 AM   #71

DIVUS IVLIVS's Avatar
Bibliophile
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Virginia
Posts: 3,027

Quote:
Originally Posted by OpanaPointer View Post
Nope, a standard dismissive reply. You want to change history, you provide evidence to support the change. So far you've failed to do that quite routinely. Ergo, there's no reason to do more than repeat the fundamental requirement of evidence until you either do so or admit that your own "evidence" fails the test of validity.
What exactly is it about my evidence that "fails the test of validity"?

Do you dispute the factual accuracy of anything in the article that I linked to above?

Your "argument" has consisted entirely of pointing out that Hirohito mentioned the bombs in his speech announcing the surrender. Which does nothing at all to disprove that the entry of the Russians into the conflict was by far the most important factor in tipping the balance of power in the Japanese government from the hawks to the doves.

It would be nice if you could make substantive responses instead of just sneering about how little time you have for "revisionist history". Then we could make a proper discussion of this.
DIVUS IVLIVS is offline  
Remove Ads
Old August 23rd, 2015, 06:33 AM   #72

DIVUS IVLIVS's Avatar
Bibliophile
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Virginia
Posts: 3,027

Quote:
Originally Posted by OpanaPointer View Post
And this from Truman (Year of Decisions, page 411):


We can put the "the bombs were dropped to beat the Russians" to bed.
That quote does literally nothing to disprove the argument that it was fear of the Russians rather than the bomb that influenced the Japanese government to surrender.

EDIT: Never mind the fact that Harry Truman's memoirs are not exactly what you'd call an unbiased source for discussing whether or not dropping the bombs was the right decision.

Last edited by DIVUS IVLIVS; August 23rd, 2015 at 06:36 AM.
DIVUS IVLIVS is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2015, 06:36 AM   #73

OpanaPointer's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Near St. Louis.
Posts: 11,643

Quote:
Originally Posted by DIVUS IVLIVS View Post
That quote does literally nothing to disprove the argument that it was fear of the Russians rather than the bomb that influenced the Japanese government to surrender.
If your scholarship is one inch deep, sure. But if you swim in the oceans of history you'll find more depth is needed.
OpanaPointer is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2015, 06:46 AM   #74

DIVUS IVLIVS's Avatar
Bibliophile
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Virginia
Posts: 3,027

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell2 View Post
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs weren't shocking in the amount of destruction. The Tokyo fire bombs had done more damage. The shock to Japan was that this was ONE bomb and ONE aircraft. The Tokyo bombing had been by a large squadron with hundreds of bombs. The idea that the US might follow Nagasaki with a squadron of aircraft with such bombs rightfully horrified Japan. Russia was something they knew and understood. They'd been battling US ground forces and navy. These things had not stimulated them to surrender. They didn't have any capacity to stop the air force. The idea that they might have every city so bombed did indeed cause them to surrender. It wasn't a matter of fighting other men. It was a matter of surrender or total annihilation by an enemy they could not touch.
That's a compelling chain of reasoning.

The problem is that it bears little resemblance to the documentary record we have concerning the discussions that took place in the Japanese halls of power in the actual lead-up to the surrender.

Their overwhelming concern was that if they didn't negotiate a surrender promptly, then not only would the Red Army play a major role in the eventual invasion, but Russia would also be heavily involved in the post-war occupation.

Worries about the a-bombs were only a secondary factor.

EDIT: It's also worth remembering that in 1945 we didn't have hundreds of nuclear bombs. We only had three, and there was a lot of uncertainty about what we'd do with the third one if its use was called for. By that stage most of the major Japanese cities had already been reduced to rubble. There weren't too many targets left that would justify the use of that sort of firepower, even if the Japanese hadn't surrendered.

Last edited by DIVUS IVLIVS; August 23rd, 2015 at 06:58 AM.
DIVUS IVLIVS is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2015, 06:47 AM   #75

DIVUS IVLIVS's Avatar
Bibliophile
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Virginia
Posts: 3,027

Quote:
Originally Posted by OpanaPointer View Post
If your scholarship is one inch deep, sure. But if you swim in the oceans of history you'll find more depth is needed.
So you've got nothing substantive to respond with. Got it.
DIVUS IVLIVS is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2015, 09:46 AM   #76

LordZ's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Apr 2015
From: United States
Posts: 519

Quote:
Originally Posted by DIVUS IVLIVS View Post
Actually, the old notion that Hiroshima caused the Japanese to surrender is most likely a myth. The overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that the prospect of Soviet Russia entering the conflict was the decisive factor influencing the Japanese government to throw in the towel. With the benefit of hindsight, the atomic bomb was probably unnecessary. Here's a good article that lays it out:

The Bomb Didn't Beat Japan: Stalin Did | Foreign Policy
This is an opinion though not a fact. The same goes for the viewpont that the atomic bombs primarily caused Japan's surrender. It is disputed to this very day on which factor caused Japan's surrender - even among the Japanese. For instance, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa agrees with your viewpoint while Sadao Asada agrees with the view that the primary factor in Japan's surrender was the atomic bombs. I will concede that it was my fault for making it seem like the atomic bombs causing Japan's surrender was established fact when there are no established, unanimously agreed upon facts regarding this issue. I remember we had a debate in high school about a year and a half ago in APUSH class regarding the necessity of the atomic bombings - people were arguing furiously for both sides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DIVUS IVLIVS View Post
That map is from 1942, when MacArthur was indeed merely the commander of the Southwest Pacific Area. After April 1945 however, he was promoted to become commander in chief of all Army and Air Force units in the Pacific, which erased the old boundary lines of his authority.

As a result of this, there were a lot of arguments post-April 1945 about who held responsibility for what in the Pacific. The snafu over Malaya was only one of many things that had to be straightened out in conference.
The land forces operational area of the Southeast Asian command (of which Mountbatten was supreme commander) included Malaya from the time it was created - unless MacArthur was somehow put in command of British forces in this area, I don't see any conflict of responsiblity here but MacArthur was promoted to commander in chief of only U.S. Army Forces in the Pacific. Plus I doubt he purposely hindered/delayed the British war effort - he couldn't have known when the war was ending before it actually ended. They were preparing for an invasion of the Japanese home islands (Operation Olympic) up to the very end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DIVUS IVLIVS View Post
The U.S. was anti-colonialist in nature - there is an important distinction. Anti-imperialism on the other hand, was mostly a matter of semantics.
I suppose you are right about this.

Last edited by LordZ; August 23rd, 2015 at 10:15 AM.
LordZ is offline  
Old August 23rd, 2015, 10:10 AM   #77

diddyriddick's Avatar
Forum Curmudgeon
 
Joined: May 2009
From: A tiny hamlet in the Carolina Sandhills
Posts: 14,692

DI started an atomic bomb thread elsewhere. Please limit yourselves to the discussion of the OP-The 4 mistakes specified.
diddyriddick is offline  
Old September 10th, 2016, 12:44 PM   #78

Menshevik's Avatar
VIVE L' EMPEREUR
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: The People's Republik of Kalifornia.
Posts: 8,661

Quote:
Originally Posted by betgo View Post
1) Disobeys orders attacking bonus marchers, 2) Mishandles defense of the Philippines, 3) Pushes for invasion of the Philippines, and 4) Provokes China to enter Korean War.

He was brilliant, well-connected, and had a flare for showmanship, but it is hard to understand how he was allowed to make so many mistakes. Or do you disagree they were mistakes?
I hope DIVUS doesn't mind me borrowing this post from another thread. I wanted to address it, but wanted to do it in a more appropriate thread, this one, I think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DIVUS IVLIVS View Post
By abandoning the plans for his forces, in the event of a Japanese invasion, to retreat to the Bataan Peninsula and defend that position until relief forces could arrive from the America. Instead he proposed to hold all of Luzon, while using his air forces to sink approaching Japanese ships. In the event, most of his planes were destroyed on the ground, and he wound up having to retreat to Bataan anyway - losing most of his army's supplies in the process.

If Bataan had been properly stocked with food and ammunition, MacArthur could easily have held out there against anything the Japanese had to throw at him, for years if necessary. Instead his troops starved and ran out of ammo, resulting in one of the worst defeats in the history of the U.S. Armed Forces, all because of his arrogance.

I actually admire MacArthur far more than most, and consider it an excellent thing that Roosevelt and Marshall saved him from the deserved consequences of his 1941 stupidity. He was one of the great geopolitical visionaries that America produced in the 20th century, and it would have been a frightful shame to have lost his subsequent services. But there is no doubt that he blundered in his defense of Philippines, on an epic and costly scale.
1. Why did he abandon the plan? And to clarify, the plan was to hold (instead of trying to hold all of Luzon?) Bataan and thus keep Manila Bay and Subic Bay open, is that right?



2. Why were his planes destroyed on the ground?

Also, didn't he have some B-17s among his air forces? I always thought those big bombers were only effective against cities/towns/large targets....were they effective against Japanese infantry? Tanks? Ships? What exactly was their intended role there in the Phillpines?



3. And Bataan wasn't properly stocked with food because Macarthur had previously decided to spread the supplies around in hopes of holding all of Luzon, is that correct?



Thanks again to DIVUS and to anyone else that will help me try to understand this topic.
Menshevik is offline  
Old September 10th, 2016, 03:59 PM   #79

Son of Athena's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,523

Quote:
Originally Posted by Menshevik View Post
I hope DIVUS doesn't mind me borrowing this post from another thread. I wanted to address it, but wanted to do it in a more appropriate thread, this one, I think.



1. Why did he abandon the plan? And to clarify, the plan was to hold (instead of trying to hold all of Luzon?) Bataan and thus keep Manila Bay and Subic Bay open, is that right?



2. Why were his planes destroyed on the ground?

Also, didn't he have some B-17s among his air forces? I always thought those big bombers were only effective against cities/towns/large targets....were they effective against Japanese infantry? Tanks? Ships? What exactly was their intended role there in the Phillpines?



3. And Bataan wasn't properly stocked with food because Macarthur had previously decided to spread the supplies around in hopes of holding all of Luzon, is that correct?



Thanks again to DIVUS and to anyone else that will help me try to understand this topic.
It's been a few hours since you asked this and I'll chime in with just one remark: MacArthur had an ego. An ego that rivaled Patton's. For him to abandon ground, even when it makes tactical and strategic sense, goes against who he was as a person.
Son of Athena is offline  
Old September 10th, 2016, 04:27 PM   #80
Scholar
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 811

He was awful in Korea, He should have landed at Kunsan instead of Inchon. Landing at Inchon allowed the NK's to escape and regroup. He ignored intelligence about the Chinese build up and got his troops killed for his ego.

The Bonus Army fiasco should have put him in jail.

Bataan should have been his last command.

As for invading the PI, it turned out well, thanks to luck, skill and big navy cajones, Japan lost what was left of it's navy in Battle of Leyte Gulf.

Then there was his handling Unit 731, when he gave members of the Japanese Army immunity.

And poor math skills didn't help him. He said, “mopping up” was all that was needed in the PI when there were still 250 thousand Japanese troops on Luzon. And that 200 thousand Chinese were in NK was "bunk". (Although reading about the poor performance of Chinese troops in WW2 and the revolution I can see where US military professionals wouldn't be overly concerned.)

For some reason he stayed at the top despite his failures.
yakmatt is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
douglas, macarthur, screw, ups



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Was Douglas MacArthur really that great of a military commander ? Corto Maltese War and Military History 213 April 12th, 2017 05:42 PM
Questions about Douglas Macarthur Dragon American History 2 November 14th, 2014 01:31 PM
Douglas Macarthur: Farewell to Congress. triple_dz95 History Help 7 April 18th, 2010 07:06 AM
Douglas MacArthur old_abe War and Military History 7 November 30th, 2006 04:01 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.